RE: [SLUG] RPM Fun - Solved.

2000-12-05 Thread tom burkart
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, David Kempe wrote: > > painful. I am still looking forward to all this fun when TL goes to > > rpm-4.0... > Whats TL? TurboLinux - a distribution that is rpm based like RH but comes secure (networking-wise) by default. tom. Consultant AUSSECPhone: 61 4 1768 2202 339 Bla

RE: [SLUG] RPM Fun - Solved.

2000-12-05 Thread David Kempe
> painful. I am still looking forward to all this fun when TL goes to > rpm-4.0... Whats TL? dave -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] RPM Fun - Solved.

2000-12-05 Thread tom burkart
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Stephen Mills wrote: > I found it quite frustrating in Redhat's approach in upgrading RPM, as > another person pointed out, probably to prompt more sales. Guys, please do not say things like that without first asking for the reason behind this. The reason is as follows: Rpm v

[SLUG] RPM Fun - Solved.

2000-12-05 Thread Stephen Mills
Hi Guys, Thanks a bunch for your suggestions, upgrading to RPM 3.0.6 solved my problem. I would of never considered this process. Hehe sendmail is complaining about compiling with missing header files, and as Dave correctly pointed out the compiled RPM version complains about glibc. No matter I'

Re: [SLUG] RPM Fun

2000-12-05 Thread Martin
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Thom May wrote: > At this point I have two comments. > The fix -iirc- is to install rpm v3.0.5 or later which is compatable with > rpm's v4. > rpm -Uvh rpm-{version}.rpm > > The other is that making a totally incompatible major change to > something like RPM is a,IMO, Micro$

Re: [SLUG] RPM Fun

2000-12-05 Thread Heracles
Stephen Mills wrote: > > Hi, > If anyone has any idea, feel free to give me a yell. > [root@davros nighty]# rpm -U rpm-4.0-4.i386.rpm > only packages with major numbers <= 3 are supported by this version of > RPM > error: rpm-4.0-4.i386.rpm cannot be installed There is a .tar.gz copy of the rpm

Re: [SLUG] RPM Fun

2000-12-05 Thread James Morris
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Stephen Mills wrote: > Hi, > If anyone has any idea, feel free to give me a yell. > > Redhat 6.1, sendmail has been cleanly removed, want to install new > version. I did a search on the web, with no cluesyes the rpm's > were downloaded in bin mode. > > [root@davros nigh

RE: [SLUG] RPM Fun

2000-12-05 Thread Dave Kempe
> The other is that making a totally incompatible major change to > something like RPM is a,IMO, Micro$oftian thing to do. Ho hum. > -Thom Frustrates me too, esp when you try to do things like upgrade sendmail :/ However, I do understand the need to move on in terms of features glibc binaries etc

Re: [SLUG] RPM Fun

2000-12-05 Thread Thom May
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 10:20:00 +1000, Stephen Mills said: > Hi, > If anyone has any idea, feel free to give me a yell. > > Redhat 6.1, sendmail has been cleanly removed, want to install new > version. I did a search on the web, with no cluesyes the rpm's > were downloaded in bin mode. > >

RE: [SLUG] RPM Fun

2000-12-05 Thread Dave Kempe
; Stephen Mills > Sent: Tuesday, 5 December 2000 11:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [SLUG] RPM Fun > > > Hi, > If anyone has any idea, feel free to give me a yell. > > Redhat 6.1, sendmail has been cleanly removed, want to install new > version. I did a search on

[SLUG] RPM Fun

2000-12-05 Thread Stephen Mills
Hi, If anyone has any idea, feel free to give me a yell. Redhat 6.1, sendmail has been cleanly removed, want to install new version. I did a search on the web, with no cluesyes the rpm's were downloaded in bin mode. [root@davros nighty]# rpm --rebuild sendmail-8.11.0-8.src.rpm Installing se